Let's talk about Dr. Millette's work. You left out some of the conclusions--the ones that are less speculative. My emphases.
I think you missed that part. Here's another part you seem to have neglected to comprehend:
LOL, you mean the part when they chemically identified 'epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments', so if the iron oxide with non-elemental Al (whoops, you can't dodge that one!) isn't paint (your apparent claim) what is it? Tick tock, there is no nanothermite made of epoxy. Sorry, you lose this argument again.
Please, show the XEDS to any materials scientist and ask them if this material is thermitic. I dare you. You won't, but you should, because it would teach you a little simple chemistry: it ain't thermitic, no matter how many times you insist it is.
This is too funny. Honestly. I'm starting to enjoy this a lot.
It's not ANY KNOWN PRIMER.
Wow, they looked at one manufacturer, because they thought the paint was made only by Tnemec. But they didn't check LaClede's formulas, remember? '
roughly 600,000 m2 while Tnemec is only known to have been specified for about 400,000 m2 of perimeter column surface. For the rest of the structural steel – core columns, hat truss and others, a total of 300,000 m2 the primer used isn't known.'
That's a huge amount of material, different from Tnemec (no Zinc Chromate for example), along with the other various formulas which nobody has documented, but which we KNOW will be found in the WTC dust. Why? Because we know they were applied to the steel after it was manufactured.
Do i personally care which primer paint made the red chips? Not really, because we already know that the material in the chips cannot be thermitic. Epoxy resin is not thermitic, neither is aluminosilicate. Both materials were identified by Dr Millette. You're making a laughingstock out of yourself by denying the obvious. Paint is paint is paint.
What about the iron microspheres? What did they say when they tested the chips at their ignition point?
A French truther scientist FH Couannier tested chips sent to him, his didn't produce any microspheres. Same material, no thermite, no spheres. So what? The material in the chips is known: it isn't thermitic material. Nor do you need to reach the melting point of steel to make microspheres. But we all know this. Your attempt to insert magic microspheres as proof has already failed, you should just stop digging the hole deeper for yourself. They don't prove the presence of thermite.
So, knowing full well that the ignition temps of the chips are about 430C, they made sure their protocol DID NOT EXCEED 400C. Why wouldn't they just turn the furnace up and test the combustion products--seeing as how that's a major lynch pin of the evidence?
Because it's not a lynchpin unless you don't understand how to identify materials properly. You apparently do not understand, nor does Harrit (or if he now does, he isn't confessing his errors).
Again you assume that the claim of microspheres as proof of thermite is valid; it simply isn't. Let's move along, you're wasting everybody's time.
Now let's look at your other chattering points:
1. The red-gray chips are no known paint-primer they can identify -
but they are a primer paint, nonetheless, almost identical to the LaClede formula. Would you like to see the LaClede specs again to refresh your memory? Otherwise just read above.
2. They are indeed composed of relatively uniform 100-200 nm iron oxide particles -
Same as Harrit's, and as other primer paints
3. Their FTIR data conflicts with the Harrit team's data regarding the existence of elemental Al -
It's actually definitive proof that the Al is not elemental, therefore no thermitic reaction would be possible even if the concentration were appropriate (which it isn't)
4. They neither confirmed nor disconfirmed the ignition by-products for failure to test -
True, but FH Couannier was not able to replicate the microspheres with his samples
5. They neither found a match for this material, nor denied the thermitic nature of it -
False. They specifically concluded 'the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'
6. Ultimately, they were unable to rule out the red-gray chips as evidence of an experimental thermal bridge material used to cause harm and murder people on 9/11/2001 -
False. They were able to prove that the chemistry does not allow a thermitic reaction. No amount of baffelgab is going to change that.
So in the best interpretation, we can say their analysis is inconclusive as to a determination of the "thermitic" nature of the red-gray chips. It is also inconclusive, at best, as to a match to any known paint/primer.
False. They conclude it is not thermitic. You must look at and respect both their conclusion, rather than misrepresenting it, and the definitive tests which prove there was no elemental Aluminum.
Yours is hardly 'best interpretation', it is frankly absurd and furthermore blatantly false - you've several times completely misrepresented what they wrote. They wrote the exact opposite of what you claimed. That's not remotely honest. But that's why you're forced to do it I suppose, because the argument is lost. We know it, and so should you.
Show me some paint that when dried, ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres,
Show me a layer of this material destroying a structural steel column, otherwise you have nothing but rhetoric. You seem to forget the burden of proof is on you and your fellow thermitists. Show that it can destroy a steel column or admit you have nothing but hot air. Are you ever going to man-up and prove this theory? Another 12 years perhaps?
I'm snickering, this becomes completely juvenile when you try to reverse the burden of proof.
There is no reason to believe a lab couldn't have designed the particle/matrix to ignite at a lower temperature.
The material is mainly made of carbon, with small amounts of Iron Oxide and Aluminosilicates. Who cares if it ignites at 400º or 450º? It's not thermitic either way.
Aliens could have designed it, or it could be magic. Prove that wrong. I know! It's alien technology, that's why it can be thermitic even when we know the chemistry cannot provide the reaction. Prove that it isn't alien or magic.
Thanks for the advice. Maybe you should focus on the fact that no known paint or primer paint has been identified as a positive match.
Not by the chart given in Millette's paper. But it has been identified as probably LaClede. So it's not a fact.
We do know.
In fact, we know that chemically this material is almost identical to KNOWN primer (LaClede), but NOT even close to
any known nanothermite. Hence your appeal to magic.
Your magic nanothermite must:
burn at a much lower temp than any known to mankind, with no empirical data provided to corroborate
produce far more energy than any known nanothermite - in fact more than regular thermite, (meaning that the chemical reaction is not thermitic)
Since a thermitic reaction cannot, chemically, produce more than about 3.96 kJ/g, and nanothermite even less (typically around 1.5 KJ/g), then the red layer is not undergoing primarily thermitic processes. But because it's magic, it is still nanothermite. We get it. Nanothermite is the answer, what was the question?
None known. Lower ignition temp than known nanothermites. Produces iron microspheres as a by-product. Let that sink in.
ANYONE COULD DO IT. Why has no one done so?
If you want to prove that this material could destroy steel structure, just mix some up (we have the chemical makeup in detail now) and show it doing so. ANYONE COULD DO IT. Why has no one done so?
You've had 12 years, actually 4 years since the Harrit paper. Yet the paper's authors have not seen fit to:
a) present it at a scientific conference for peer discussion and evaulation
b) mix up a batch and show it's amazing magic power to destroy
I know why - because they haven't got the stones to stand in front of anyone but 9/11 conspiracy theorists with this nonsense. They love to preach to the crowd, but not to a knowledgeable scientific gathering.
show some paint that does what the red-gray chips do, or go home.
Show us some magic nanothermite identical in chemistry to the red chips and blow up some steel with is, or go home. Seriously. YOU make the claims, you must provide the proof. It is a coward's way to shift the burden. We already can see from the chemistry that it's not thermite. Apparently you are unable to perceive something this blatantly obvious. I feel for you, if you're sincere. I really do. If you would only take this data to a top-notch materials scientist and let them explain it to you, you would be much wiser. You seem unable to accept simple facts presented clearly, maybe you need an authority figure to give them to you.
Actually Dr Millette has given you the answer, but you pretended he hadn't. So scratch that suggestion. I don't think you want to learn what this stuff actually is.
If you want to end this discussion now I'm fine with that. If you keep replying and revving up the baffelgab, I think I'll keep responding and shooting down your red herrings. Your call. I kind of like this game though...
Here's the calculated formula for LaClede. Please look at Harrit's graphs to see the similarity.
- C: 48% by weight
- O: 21%
- Fe: 11%
- H, N: 7% each
- Si: 2.5%
- Al: 2.4%
- Sr: 0.5%
- Cr: 0.3%
There was roughly 50% more LaClede than Tnemec on the steel, we expect to find it in the dust, along with various other formulas that were in use at the time.[/quote]